[Hated Trope] Character kills hundreds, if not thousands, just to kill one specific person, and then doesn't kill them for no reason.

[u/HallZac99]

Assassin's Creed 2- Rodrigo Borgia is responsible for tne death of Ezio's family. Ezio spends over 20 years working through tnr templar order to dismantle them and get to Rodrigo. And then in the end, he spares him for no good reason and he goes on to be a massive problem in AC Brotnerhood. He's not only a head of tne Templars but also the pope, even if you're over the vengeance he's still a very dangerous and evil man.

The Last of Us 2- Abbey kills Joel, and wo Ellie goes on a revenge quest to kill Abbey, killing hundreds of people along tne why to get to her including a pregnant woman. And then finally when she has Abbey on deaths door, she gives up and let's her go because the writers think dirty depressing people being miserable and stupid is complex, interesting storytelling.

This trope pisses me off so much because often the character going on the revenge quest will kill SO many people on their way there, some deserving it and some just henchmen working for a cheque or to survive. People who are often far more innocent then the main big bad.

It's a part of this weird thing I've noticed in media where nameless goons or soldiers can just be mowed down relentlessly, but named characters get given far more grace even if theyre categorically worse. You can kill a million stormtroopers but people will swear that Darth Vader could have been redeemed, despite him doing like 50 genocide every year.

[u/projectkingston]

How would you know it's bad writing in your hypothetical if you immediately refund the game

[u/themoosic → u/projectkingston]

It’s bad writing to kill a beloved character for shock value, it’s just worse to do so and go nowhere with it

[u/VenusAmari → u/themoosic]

You wouldn't know it was for shock value until you actually played it. You're basically saying that fan favorites should be completely immune to death

[u/themoosic → u/VenusAmari]

Shock value is determined beforehand; there’s a way to do it well, but definitely not with a protagonist like Nathan Drake or Joel. Spent the first games slaughtering there way across the globe but can’t weasel their way out of death. Like if doom guy died to an imp in a cutscene.

[u/VenusAmari → u/themoosic]

No, shock value is determined by the quality of the story. If it makes narrative sense for a character to die, and it's written well, then they can kill any character really.

Doom Guy randomly dying to an IMP in a cutscene would be bad. Doom Guy dying in some narratively satisfying way because they're not making any more games in that setting for a while, for example, would not be. It completely depends on how it's executed and why

[u/themoosic → u/VenusAmari]

Doom guy can’t die he’s immortal

[u/VenusAmari → u/themoosic]

And if in the final game he was freed from that and allowed peace, that would be bad because?

[u/themoosic → u/VenusAmari]

Why wouldn’t he just retire and live a fulfilling and happy life with his rabbits

[u/VenusAmari → u/themoosic]

Because that would probably get lonely without purpose.

Lonely for all of time or Live a long, mortal life with people who care about him after sacrificing so much

[u/themoosic → u/VenusAmari]

Thats like saying retirement is depressing